Revenue protection through customs surety upheld as Tribunal order implementation was allowed with safeguards for disputed duty.

A direction to implement the Tribunal's order was upheld because it was not prejudicial to the Revenue: the Department was left free to insist on a customs surety or security bond to protect the disputed amount if the appeal succeeded. The Court also recognised that the Department could require a solvent surety supported by a solvency certificate, and that implementation would not arise if the Supreme Court granted interim relief. No interference was warranted, the appeal was dismissed, and the time for implementation of the Tribunal's order was extended by two weeks.

---

---

Issues: Whether the direction to implement the Tribunal's order without causing prejudice to the Revenue called for interference in appeal, and whether the Department could insist on adequate surety to safeguard the disputed amount.

Analysis: The direction of the single Judge was treated as not adverse to the Customs Department, since it permitted the Department to require a customs surety or security bond to protect the Revenue if the appeal succeeded. The Court further noted that the Department could insist on a solvent surety with a solvency certificate, and that implementation of the Tribunal's order would not arise if an interim order were obtained from the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted, and the appeal was dismissed, while the time for implementation of the Tribunal's order was extended by two weeks.

---